Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Ways to shore up the Antarctic ice cap and save coastal cities around the world..
(How do we want spend our latest tax cuts ?)

Manmade Antarctic snowstorm 'could save coastal cities from rising seas'

Blowing trillions of tonnes of snow on to ice sheet could halt its collapse, researchers say

Spraying trillions of tons of snow over west Antarctica could halt the ice sheet’s collapse and save coastal cities across the world from sea level rise, according to a new study.

The colossal geoengineering project would need energy from at least 12,000 wind turbines to power giant seawater pumps and snow cannons, and would destroy a unique natural reserve. The scientists are not advocating for such a project, but said its apparent “absurdity” reflects the extraordinary scale of threat from rising sea level.

Ending the burning of fossil fuels remains the key to tackling the climate crisis and sea level rise, the researchers said. But the carbon emissions pumped into the atmosphere so far may already have doomed the west Antarctic ice sheet.

A series of earlier studies concluded the accelerating loss of ice from the region could not be stopped by emissions cuts any more, meaning the oceans will rise by three metres in the coming centuries. This would leave major cities across the world, from New York to Kolkata to Shanghai, below sea level.

“As scientists we feel it is our duty to inform society about every potential option to counter the problems ahead,” said Prof Anders Levermann, at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, who led the research. “As unbelievable as [the proposal] might seem, in order to prevent an unprecedented risk, humankind might have to make an unprecedented effort.”

“The effort needed would be huge, like an Antarctic moon landing,” he said, though the cost would be less than abandoning even one city like New York. “It is up to society to make this choice – it can’t shy away from making decisions.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rm-could-save-coastal-cities-from-rising-seas
 
How significant as the recent heat wave in Europe ?
The World Meteorological Organization has a detailed analayis and neat 2 minute video. It is particularly scary to realise that this record has happened in a non El Nino year

July equalled, and maybe surpassed, the hottest month in recorded history
Tags:
Climate change
=field_cloud_tags%3A277']Environment
=field_cloud_tags%3A285']Public health

1
Published
1 August 2019

According to the new data from the World Meteorological Organization and Copernicus Climate Change Programme, July at least equalled, if not surpassed, the hottest month in recorded history. This follows the warmest ever June on record.

The data from the Copernicus Climate Change Programme, run by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, is fed into the UN system by WMO. The figures show that, based on the first 29 days of the month, July 2019 will be on par with, and possibly marginally warmer than the previous warmest July, in 2016, which was also the warmest month ever.

The latest figures are particularly significant because July 2016 was during one of the strongest occurrence of the El Niño phenomenon, which contributes to heightened global temperatures. Unlike 2016, 2019 has not been marked by a strong El Niño.

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/new...aybe-surpassed-hottest-month-recorded-history
 
Following on from the massive heat wave in Europe.
This heated air mass has now spilled into the Arctic and is melting the Greenland Ice cap at ridiculous levels.
(Isn't it great that the noted scholar and intellectual Andrew Bolt reassures us there is nothing to worry about with global warming ? )

Heatwaves amplify near-record levels of ice melt in northern hemisphere
Greenland’s ice sheet shrunk more in past month than in average year, experts warn

Jonathan Watts Global environment editor

@jonathanwatts
Fri 2 Aug 2019 02.00 EDT Last modified on Fri 2 Aug 2019 04.10 EDT

Shares
274


6240.jpg

Visitors walk among free-floating ice jammed into the Ilulissat Icefjord during unseasonably warm weather on July 30, 2019 near Ilulissat, Greenland. Photograph: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
The frozen extremities of the northern hemisphere are melting at a near-record rate as heatwaves buffet the Arctic, forest fires tear through Siberia and glaciers retreat on Greenland fjords and Alpine peaks.

Unusually high temperatures are eating into ice sheets that used to be solid throughout the year, according to glaciologists, who warn this is both an amplifying cause and effect of man-made climate disruption across the globe.

Greenland – which is home to the world’s second biggest ice sheet – is likely to have shrunk more in the past month than the average for a whole year between 2002 and now, according to provisional estimates from satellite data. Surface ice declined in July by 197 gigatonnes, equivalent to about 80m Olympic swimming pools, according to Ruth Mottram of the Danish Meteorological Institute. An additional third of that amount is likely to have been lost from glaciers and icebergs.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ord-levels-of-ice-melt-in-northern-hemisphere
 
The isn't/can't be a single solution to somehow turning back the clock on human created global heating.

The IPCC report on land use is very strong but, in fact, it underplays the huge impact our current land use and food production impacts on changing the climate. It is fair to say the combined efforts of teh political players in the IPCC have tempered the report. (As stark s it may seem.)


We can’t keep eating as we are – why isn’t the IPCC shouting this from the rooftops?
George Monbiot
In its crucial land and climate report, the IPCC irresponsibly understates the true carbon cost of our meat and dairy habits

It’s a tragic missed opportunity. The new report on land by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shies away from the big issues and fails to properly represent the science. As a result, it gives us few clues about how we might survive the century. Has it been nobbled? Was the fear of taking on the farming industry – alongside the oil and coal companies whose paid shills have attacked it so fiercely – too much to bear? At the moment, I have no idea. But what the panel has produced is pathetic.

The problem is that it concentrates on just one of the two ways of counting the carbon costs of farming. The first way – the IPCC’s approach – could be described as farming’s current account. How much greenhouse gas does driving tractors, spreading fertiliser and raising livestock produce every year? According to the panel’s report, the answer is around 23% of the planet-heating gases we currently produce. But this fails miserably to capture the overall impact of food production.

The second accounting method is more important. This could be described as the capital account: how does farming compare to the natural ecosystems that would otherwise have occupied the land? A paper published in Nature last year, but not mentioned by the IPCC, sought to count this cost. Please read these figures carefully. They could change your life.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...cc-land-climate-report-carbon-cost-meat-dairy
 
We can’t keep eating as we are – why isn’t the IPCC shouting this from the rooftops?
Because it gets to the crux of the problem that few are willing to face.

Population.

If we're going to have a lot less food production then having a lot less people to feed is the inescapable requirement associated with that. Cutting back on waste would help sure but that alone isn't enough.

"Per capita" arguments just don't cut it. Never have and never will in a situation where it's the total volume of emissions which matters.

The earth's population has gone up roughly 50% since this issue became mainstream in the late 1980's and no surprise to find that emissions are also trending firmly up.

At a local level, Australia's doing pretty well at cutting emissions "per capita". Trouble is, with population growth that means total emissions are still going up despite declining per capita. That is, of course, the expected outcome and not surprising.

Trouble is, very few are willing to face that reality since it involves a complete rethink of just about everything from banking to religion. Making the power grid work is just the easy bit really. :2twocents
 
Population.

Not to mention that when people come here from subsistence economies to our high consumption society then global emissions will rise.

The obvious moral problem is that can we expect the subsistence economies to stay that way so that we can enjoy our profligate lifestyle ? Morally no, but practically very few think that we should reduce our consumption for the global benefit.
 
The huge issue with food production is not just "population" .

The point made by the IPCC report and re made with Geoge Monbiot is the way western counties (and now Middle Cass India and China) meet their diets.

Please. At least read the story and appreciate the points made about meat and dairy diets vs non meat diets.:(
 
The huge issue with food production is not just "population" .

The point made by the IPCC report and re made with Geoge Monbiot is the way western counties (and now Middle Cass India and China) meet their diets.

Please. At least read the story and appreciate the points made about meat and dairy diets vs non meat diets.:(

The story was read when you posted it bas.

Of course the elephant in the room (or maybe the cow) is our dependence on meat. Personally I eat very little red meat these days and haven't done so for some time. I don't feel any worse for it but trying to wean dedicated meat eaters away from meat towards plants is not going to be easy.
 
Please. At least read the story and appreciate the points made about meat and dairy diets vs non meat diets.:(
I have indeed read it and my comments are with that in mind.

Telling people to go vegan is much like telling them to drink low alcohol beer or smoke "light" cigarettes. It might be a less bad option but do enough of it and your liver / lungs will still be stuffed in due course, all the change does is delay the inevitable.

Same with population and diet. Up 50% in the past 30 years. Keep repeating that and in due course even if literally everyone goes vegan then it still ends up outright trashing the planet especially given that there's rather a lot of land that's good for grazing and nothing else. Take that out of production, no more grazing, and pressure on what remains goes up.

Plus of course there's the reality that not everyone will actually go vegan. Just like we still have people who smoke and we still have people who drink daily despite the dangers of both being well established.

Same goes for just about every resource, we're simply using too much of everything from steel to fertilizer to wood and that's happening in a world where a large portion of the population is aiming to raise per capita consumption and we're also growing the population.

Keep going and many of us will live to see mining in Antarctica that's a given, indeed depending on your perspective climate change can't come quickly enough since getting rid of the ice will make digging the rest far easier. :(

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01...ctic-mining-despite-international-ban/6029414

Another 2013 report for the Chinese Arctic and Antarctic Administration obtained from a confidential source said: "Regardless of how the spoils are divided up, China must have a share of Antarctic mineral resources to ensure the survival and development of its one billion population."

It's like the fossil fuel debate. Politics and treaties aside, the harsh reality is that global emissions continue to rise at a significant pace.

https://www.carbonindependent.org/images/co2_emissions_2000.png

If the seriousness of this issue is anywhere even remotely close to what's claimed then we're stuffed basically. :2twocents
 
"especially given that there's rather a lot of land that's good for grazing and nothing else. Take that out of production, no more grazing, and pressure on what remains goes up"
Can the vegan lobby evee acknowledge that?:thumbsdown:
Smurf resumes it all:
Unless population decreases we are stuffed,even for someone luke me now fully convinced that co2 has nothing to do with our current climate change
Even outside climate, we are heading to doom thru sheer numbers ;
years travelling and working in asia outside the cosy place named australia makes it so obvious but this is met with denial by our guardian readers mobs...
 
Well it looks like there's no hope at all ? Some people want to see the Antarctic laid bare so we can begin mining it ? I don't know where we would be using it because sea levels would be 216 feet higher which wipes out practically every significant city in the world.

As I'm watching it we have gone from total denial about global warming to complete resignation about its reality and the possibility/probability our civilization will be basically stuffed. The IPCC report was recognising the impact our food choices have on the earth and pointing out other ways we could ensure we all were well fed but reducing our impact on global warming.

The issues of overusing our natural resources have been recognised for 40-50 years now. Of course it doesn't stop the superwealthy making sure they have everything the want.


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/
 
Well it looks like there's no hope at all ? Some people want to see the Antarctic laid bare so we can begin mining it ? I don't know where we would be using it because sea levels would be 216 feet higher which wipes out practically every significant city in the world.

To clarify - I most certainly don't want to see that outcome but I can certainly see that's where we're headed. 7.7 billion people and rising all wanting high consumption rates - end result is every resource anywhere on the planet will be used.

That's in the same category as saying I don't want a bushfire and I don't want the ASX to go down either but if there's smoke rising above the hills then no point denying it.

A few more years of emissions going up and I expect a lot more will reach the same conclusion I have. There's 3 basic scenarios:

1. A full scale war-like approach to the problem where all normal rules are disregarded and an unprecedented level of co-operation occurs amongst all manner of normally opposed parties. Anything that works is adopted and what seems impossible actually happens politically.

2. The problem turns out to be false and CO2 doesn't really matter too much.

3. We're stuffed.

If I were to take a guess it's that something drastic actually happens and only after that we get the war-like approach.

The problem is the scale of what's required and the ideological opposition. Rather a lot of organisations, politicians and so on need to actively work to do the exact opposite of what they're doing now - that's not going to be an easy change. :2twocents
 
Population growth is the real problem, it is a compounding effects and with medicines we are adding to the issue. :xyxthumbs
No matter what we do, if the World population keeps growing, we will go the way of the dinosaurs the only unknown is when.
The more affluent the World becomes, the more the mortality rate falls, the more the problem speeds up.:xyxthumbs
My guess is it is a bigger problem than rising sea levels, because that wont be fixed, until the population growth stops.
 
As I'm watching it we have gone from total denial about global warming to complete resignation about its reality and the possibility/probability our civilization will be basically stuffed.

Right at this moment in Australia we could cut some emissions and save money with nothing more than a few keystrokes.

Just take some load off a rather inefficient power station that's running and put it on a far more efficient one that's running well below capacity. Without wanting to name them, you could stand outside one and look at the other.

That our political masters would have anyone who tried to make that happen literally in jail for collusion illustrates the reason I've become so pessimistic on the issue. Economic ideology, political ideology, scenery preservation and all manner of other excuses keep pushing action on CO2 down the list so it doesn't get done.

My conclusion is thus that government and quite a few others either genuinely think there's no problem or have chosen to consciously ignore it. Utterances about catching buses and turning off lights, whilst not bad in themselves, are paying lip service to it so long as far more substantial things are ignored.

Now realise that the same situation applies throughout much of the world, pretty much everything from urban air quality to noise to economic ideology to aesthetics is deemed more important, and it's not surprising that emissions continue to rise.

Those other issues may well be important as such, but so long as there's a long list of things all deemed more important than CO2, even though many of them are either temporary or have already been greatly improved, then the CO2 issue doesn't get fixed and that's reality. :2twocents
 
And do not forget that China does not care at all about co2
I am not even sure that my chinese colleagues have heard about Co2 links to climate change.
China goes electric to save air quality in towns, but burns coal to power it.
Use solar and wind :because it is cheap
I have not see any move to reduce co2 emissions while in China.
What is said by the Chinese government in international meetings etc is another story, but actions talk louder.
And as China government leads for the long term, i am certain they would act if there was a real co2 threat.
I then started to question the co2 link.
If co2 is the cause then if co2 level is much higher, we should boil?
Millions of years ago when forest was covering earth and created the coal and oil deposits, co2 concentration was around 4000 to 5000ppm
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845/figures/4
And earth was a tropical garden of Eden, not a boiling planet.
We are at 250 ppm
That is fact and not loony science, and earth activity was higher then with more heat released from the core
Yes climate is changing
Napoleon could cross the frozen Rhine with his army 200y ago..do not try today but co2 is not the cause
We have bigger problems and overpopulation is at the core of the real ones
 
Top